SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5064

- 16T1

BRIAN PALADINO , Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted February 27, 2019

– Decided April 17, 201 9 Before Judges Koblitz and Currier. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Brian Paladino , appellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kevin J. Dronson , Deputy Attorney G eneral, on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 5064

- 16T1

Appellant Brian Paladino , a State inmate, appeals f r om t he sanction imposed by the Department of Correcti o ns (DOC) after a finding of guilt of committing a prohibited act. Appellant contends the sanction of thirty day s loss
of recreational privileges is not permissible under N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 5. We affirm. Appellant was charged with several prohibited acts a fter striking his
cellmate with a cane

. Following a disciplinary hearing , appellant was f ound guilty of *.306, "c onduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility" ; and *.014, " unauthorized physical contact with any per s on with an arti c le, item or material , such as anything rea d i ly capab le o f in flicting bodily injury. " The hearing officer noted appellant's
written statement in which he admitted striking his cellmate with a cane , and video surveillance footage depicting the act

. The hearing officer imposed sanctions of thirty days loss of recreational privilege s, 180 days of administrative segre gation , and 120 days loss of
commutation time. The officer advised the sanctions were imposed to "maintain the orderly running of the institution" and the situation could have been much worse if officers were not already on the floor responding to issues with appellant.3 A

- 5064

- 16T1

Appellant appealed the decision , arguing the proper infraction was *.014 1 and the hearing was untimely

. The DOC reviewed and affirmed the findings
and sanctions

. 2 On appeal, appellant raises a new argu ment , contending the imposed sanction of loss of recreational privileges is impermissible. We disagree. Our role in reviewing a prison disciplinary decision is limited. Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr. , 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). Generally , the decision must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or lacked the support of "substantial credible evidence in the
record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison , 81 N.J. 571, 579

- 80 (1980)

. A conviction under prohibited act *.014 results in a sanction of no less than ninety

- one days of administrative segregation , as well as one or more of
the additional sanctions required under N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 5.1(g). T hirty days loss of recreational privileg es is one of the additional sanctions listed. N.J.A.C.
10A:4

- 5.1(g)(1) ("Loss of one or more correctional facility privileges up to [thirty] calendar days.").

1 Appellant was originally charged with *.003, " assaulting any person with a weapon. " However, the charge was modified to a *.014 infraction b y the hearing officer

.

2 Appellant does not reassert these contentions in this appeal.4 A

- 5064

- 16T1

T he decision of the hearing officer was based on sufficient credible evidence, and the decision of the DOC was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Affirmed.